Advertisements

The answer is: For the most part, the people who make purchasing decisions
want some other company they can hold accountable, or at least blame if
something goes wrong. These people don't really know anything about
software - and are relying on what they've been told by so-called experts.
These purchasers generally are only looking for the cheapest easiest
solution. These persons are generally not employed for the IT acumen. And
they for the most part have been blinkered by other people who know how to
speak the language of finace; who have a financial investment in promoting
the ways of Micro$oft; and who repeatedly want the profitable and ongoing
business of cleaning up the ensuing mess that invariably happens from
using Micro$oft software.

If you want a robust and reliable and effective long term solution that is
not affected by viruses, you do not willingly choose Micro$oft software.

Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
"Only one thing is impossible for a Vorlon to understand:
How to change the IRQ setting in any DOS computer."

Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 23:23:48 -0700, Howard1309 wrote:
>
>
>>I've always wondered quite why NZers were so reluctant to get on board.
>
>
> The answer is: For the most part, the people who make purchasing decisions
> want some other company they can hold accountable, or at least blame if
> something goes wrong.

Yes....

These people don't really know anything about
> software - and are relying on what they've been told by so-called experts.
> These purchasers generally are only looking for the cheapest easiest
> solution. These persons are generally not employed for the IT acumen.

I seem to know to many BA's that fit this mold, not to mention a few
others.....my experiences are different to yours. With CIO's and similar
people they are usually pretty switched on, the downfall is leaving the
solutions to the BAs while they look longer term......

And
> they for the most part have been blinkered by other people who know how to
> speak the language of finace; who have a financial investment in promoting
> the ways of Micro$oft; and who repeatedly want the profitable and ongoing
> business of cleaning up the ensuing mess that invariably happens from
> using Micro$oft software.

Some do and some dont, the biggest issue I see is actually one of MS's
strengths the software all works together and is quick to deploy. For a
decent sized business trying to impliment a solution the
specifiers/impliementors are not the maintainers... So it goes together
well.....just has a nasty tendancy to fall apart....(see my point 4 below).
> If you want a robust and reliable and effective long term solution that is
> not affected by viruses, you do not willingly choose Micro$oft software.
>
>
> Have A Nice Cup of Tea
>

For servers viruses are not that big an issue....indeed we are finding
that with good firewalling and virus checking combined, virus infections
of MS servers is not a biggee.

In the last two years I have seen some interesting trends,

1) Most see Solaris and indeed "true" Unixes decline. Sun seems to be
fighting back with CMT hardware and by moving into the services and
middleware stack, good on them. Did you know all of their middleware can
be downloaded and deployed for free? Sun will then offer paid support if
you want it (and no you are not forced to buy it aka mysql model). Of
course no CIO is going to go live on a major say, identity system
without covering he ass...so he buys support.....IBM is into Linux,
Novell, HP as well.....all on a different path to Sun...but not the Unix
path.

2) In two years our Linux deployment has gone from a handful of Linux
boxes to 40 boxes with more coming. I think it would/should be even
higher, but the ignorance of those scoping the work and seeking the
solutions is holding that back.

3) When moving off Unix for financials, the stuff moves to Linux, cant
see to many people going MS where they are or were substantially Unix.

4) Lots of commercial stuff, serious and large mission critical 24/7
applications are moving to Linux as the lead OS for their next version,
they are moving away from MS with Linux as the OS of choice. Why?
reliability & stability, cost of the OS is not an issue. Who cares
whether the OS is free, $1000 or $3000 when the applications are many
times that and the hardware it will run on is into serious money, like
when its hundreds of thousands....the OS is peanuts....

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:44:38 +1200, thingy wrote:
> Who cares
> whether the OS is free, $1000 or $3000 when the applications are many
> times that and the hardware it will run on is into serious money, like
> when its hundreds of thousands....the OS is peanuts....

Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:44:38 +1200, thingy wrote:
>
>
>>Who cares
>>whether the OS is free, $1000 or $3000 when the applications are many
>>times that and the hardware it will run on is into serious money, like
>>when its hundreds of thousands....the OS is peanuts....
>
>
> True, agreed, and agreed. I like your balanced rational canvassing of the
> salient points. (as apposed to my unbalanced irrational vent;o) )
>
> Thing, how much of your job do you do in the evening?

I study in the evening when I can....at the moment openldap and mysql,
read lots...family tends to limit it now though. When you are single and
a geek you come home sit don and eat what ever isnt moving or doesnt
looks too moldy.....families want real food which means cooking, washing
up.....help with homework...attention over thier latest lego creation
etc etc....lego is cool though....

;]
> Would there be any scope for a person getting work experience in your
> company?

I have no idea, I can ask.
> Cheers, and regards
>
> Have A Nice Cup of Tea

Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:44:38 +1200, thingy wrote:
>
>
>>Who cares
>>whether the OS is free, $1000 or $3000 when the applications are many
>>times that and the hardware it will run on is into serious money, like
>>when its hundreds of thousands....the OS is peanuts....
>
>
> True, agreed, and agreed. I like your balanced rational canvassing of the
> salient points. (as apposed to my unbalanced irrational vent;o) )

Irrantional vent gets you no where, in saying that I am finding that
balanced rational propositions get me no where either.

It is interesting that a person who advocates Linux/Unix can be
perceived by the majority of THE BORG as a threat and a
fanatic....(where the The Borg are a majority) being a single Linux
person in a group of I guess 15 odd is hard work.....From the "fanatics"
point of view (me) the collective and irrantional wall in front of me
gets tighter when I suggest OSS solutions....its like they want to feel
safe in a group....no risk....yet of course business is about risk, yes
there is a risk of failure and an OSS might be a bigger risk than the
CSS solution, but if the OSS solution is going to be significantly
better than CSS, then your business has an edge.....a winning one....

So dont think in terms of OSS v CSS, think in terms of advantage to the
business and pick the best solution for the job. Have a rational
criteria on why the solution was picked and go with it....

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 07:30:04 +1200, thingy wrote:
> Irrantional vent gets you no where, in saying that I am finding that
> balanced rational propositions get me no where either.

True, but Irrational vents in cyberspace are good for letting off steam,
and nobody actually needs to read them. )

After all, Who actually DOES like Micro$oft? ;o)

I know people that were involved years ago with computers but gave it away
in favour of a job with less stress. Now with Linux they're saying that
they didn't realise that tinkering with computers could be such fun -
which it is on a *nix system. )

Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.

Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 07:30:04 +1200, thingy wrote:
>
>
>>So dont think in terms of OSS v CSS, think in terms of advantage to the
>>business and pick the best solution for the job.
>
>
> Of course that's how it should be when promoting the best interests of the
> company one works for. )
>

This is where Linux geeks/advocates can win, taking on the quiet "I will
pick MS decision" with a documented process that is in the open and has
to be followed....of course, geeks hate paperwork.

Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 07:30:04 +1200, thingy wrote:
>
>
>>So dont think in terms of OSS v CSS, think in terms of advantage to the
>>business and pick the best solution for the job.
>
>
> Of course that's how it should be when promoting the best interests of the
> company one works for. )
>
> And surely a closed source purchase/implementation would have to be
> considerably better in some way if it were to push out of the way an Open
> Source equivalent. :^)

thingy wrote:
> Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 07:30:04 +1200, thingy wrote:
>>
>>
>>> So dont think in terms of OSS v CSS, think in terms of advantage to
>>> the business and pick the best solution for the job.
>>
>>
>> Of course that's how it should be when promoting the best interests of
>> the
>> company one works for. )
>>
>> And surely a closed source purchase/implementation would have to be
>> considerably better in some way if it were to push out of the way an Open
>> Source equivalent. :^)
>
>
> http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/49876.html
>
> Things like the above should be ringing huge alarm bells at
> Redmond....hopefully they are all deaf....
>
> ;]
>
> regards
>
> Thing
>
Not to mention this story, rather closer to home:http://reallylinux.com/docs/linuxnewzealand.shtml

Nihil wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:40:54 +1200, Have a nice cup of pee wrote:
>
>> Linux... yeah linux.. Linux... Linux is good... Microsoft bad... Linux....
>> Did I say Linux
>
> Why would I want an OS written by dimwitted teenage hackers, and if they
> end up being any good they usually end up working for Microsoft anyway.
>
> -N

One drink
Take one drink if the author says...

* Linux will never go mainstream
* Any platform that can't run Microsoft Office [or some other
Microsoft "solution"] sucks
* Linux is hard to install
* No one can make money from Linux
* Linux tech support is lacking
* No one ever got fired for choosing Microsoft
* Linux has no central blue-chip company to hold liable when
something goes wrong
* Linux is for nerds
* Linux doesn't have enough native software
* Windows has more games than Linux, therefore Windows is better
* NT is more secure/stable/powerful/whatever than Linux
* Microsoft is an innovative company

Two drinks
Take two drinks if the author says...

* Could you get fired for choosing Linux?
* Unix and Linux come in multiple, incompatible flavors
* I can't go down to the mall and buy shrink-wrapped Linux
software, therefore Linux sucks
* Any OS with a command line interface is primitive
* Microsoft will be around until the end of time... who knows what
will happen to Linux?
* Freeware sucks
* Linux was created by a bunch of snot-nosed 14 year old hackers
with acne and no life
* Security through obscurity is the way to go
* NT is the future of enterprise computing

Drain it
Drink the contents of your container if the author says...

* Linus and Unix are 70s technology while NT is 90s technology
* Nobody can beat Microsoft... why bother trying?
* I predicted Linux' mainstream acceptance several years ago [only
applies to Jesse Berst columns]
* All Linux software must be released under the GPL
* Linux is a great piece of shareware

Nihil wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:40:54 +1200, Have a nice cup of pee wrote:
>
>
>>Linux... yeah linux.. Linux... Linux is good... Microsoft bad... Linux....
>>Did I say Linux
>
>
> Why would I want an OS written by dimwitted teenage hackers, and if they
> end up being any good they usually end up working for Microsoft anyway.
>
> -N

lol.....troll....

Anyone who can write their own OS, is not dim witted....shows your IQ up
rather well.....about zero......

Nihil wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:40:54 +1200, Have a nice cup of pee wrote:
>
>> Linux... yeah linux.. Linux... Linux is good... Microsoft bad...
>> Linux.... Did I say Linux
>
> Why would I want an OS written by dimwitted teenage hackers, and if they
> end up being any good they usually end up working for Microsoft anyway.
>
> -N

At best you're out of date.

Linux isn't written by teen hackers...and the best programmers no longer
want to work for an unscrupulous company with a seriously bad reputation
and public image.

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 18:25:07 +1200, s.te.v.e. wrote:
> Linux isn't written by teen hackers...and the best programmers no longer
> want to work for an unscrupulous company with a seriously bad reputation
> and public image.

Come to think of it, why do it's PR droids like trying to justify such
stuff?

Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.

Share This Page

Welcome to Velocity Reviews!

Welcome to the Velocity Reviews, the place to come for the latest tech news and reviews.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to chat with other enthusiasts and get tech help from other members.
Sign up now!